MCP Appium Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether it requires a booted simulator, what format the information returns, or any error conditions. The description is too vague for a tool that likely returns structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and follows good front-loading principles.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the format of the return value, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of simulator management and the lack of structured output documentation, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'udid' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific simulator', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'xcode_get_simulator_status' or 'xcode_get_ios_simulators', which likely provide different types of simulator information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for getting simulator information (xcode_get_simulator_status, xcode_get_ios_simulators), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it should be preferred over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.